Psychological Egoism vs. Psychological Altruism

Psychological egoism is a theory that holds that the main motivation of human beings
is self-interest. This motivation is so strong that even when humans help other people it is for
their personal benefit (Carlson et al., 2020). The benefit can either be direct or indirect.
Psychological egoism is often contrasted with psychological altruism, which supports the
view that human beings can be motivated to act purely for the benefit of other people and
with completely no consideration for their own benefits. Supporters of psychological egoism
argue that there is no way one’s actions can be altruistic because in almost all instances,
people act altruistically in order to feel good about themselves and avoid feeling guilty. The
emotional benefits that they get from their actions makes the actions selfish in nature even if
they do not get any direct and tangible benefits. This paper presents arguments against the
view that the motivation behind all human actions is selfishness. Borrowing from the concept
of morality and evolutionary biology, it will show that it is possible for human beings to act
altruistically.

The core tenet of psychological egoism is the view that self-interest is the main
motivation of all actions and behaviors of human beings, even those ones that are seemingly
selfless. What distinguishes psychological egoism from other related theories, such as
economic self-interest, is the universality that the theory adopts (Carlson et al., 2020).
According to psychological egoism, it is not that some actions are motivated by self-interest
and other actions by other forms of motivation, such altruism; all human actions are
motivated by self-interest. For instance, when a man picks money on a way, he has two
options. First, he can return the money to the owner. The second option is to keep the money
to himself. According to psychological egoism, both of these actions are motivated by self-
interest. By returning the money to the owner, he benefits himself by elevating his moral

3
status, reputation, and winning admiration from other people. He other words, he benefits
socially and emotionally from a seemingly altruistic act. He also benefits himself by keeping
the money. Thus, regardless of the action that he takes, the motivation will be one of self-
interest.

The theory of psychological egoism has not gone unchallenged. There are many
weaknesses of the theory that have been pointed out by various critics. One of the criticisms
of the theory is that many forms of psychological egoism are tautological as they remain true
under any interpretation (Carlson et al., 2020). This makes most of the theory redundant. In
terms of logic, the statement “all shirts are black or not black” compares to most forms of
psychological egoism. This statement is true for all shirts simply by virtue of its logical form.
In the same way, most forms of psychological egoism are true only by virtue of their logical
form.

Another major aspect of the theory that has brought it under attack is its claim that all,
not some, but all motives behind behaviors and actions of human beings are essentially
selfish. Due to this generalization, the theory does not make meaningful distinction between
selfishness and other motives (Carlson et al., 2020). For instance, under the psychological
egoism theory, the motives of routine behaviors and actions, such as watching a movie, doing
laundry, buying clothes, and even eating, are selfish. Few people would consider acts such as
eating as being motivated by selfishness. Neither would a person who decides to take a nap or
buy an umbrella when there are rains describe their actions as being motivated by selfishness.
When analyzing a narrow set of behaviors or actions that are considered altruistic, the theory
of psychological egoism may make some interesting claims. However, when used to analyze
all actions, as it claims to be universal, the theory’s claims become increasingly trivial.

4
Perhaps the greatest challenge to the claim by psychological egoists that selfishness is
the main motive behind actions and behaviors of all human beings is the evidence that human
beings not only have the capacity for altruistic behavior but in fact frequently act in an
altruistic manner. The examples of extreme self-sacrifice provide strong evidence for altruism
(Colman & Pulford, 2018). For instance, there are many instances of soldiers laying down
their lives in order to buy time for escape of their colleagues from enemy soldiers. There are
also instances that have been recorded throughout history of people in sinking ships
foregoing an opportunity to save their lives by letting other people use their spaces in
lifeboats. It is difficult to assign any selfish motive behind such actions. Of course,
psychological egoists argue that selfishness is the main motive behind such actions because
they win the actors praise and make them feel good about themselves thus making the actions
socially and emotionally beneficial to them. Viewed in this manner, it may seem that altruism
is completely alien to human nature. This is not the case as evidence from evolutionary
biology points to altruism being natural not just to human beings but animals as well. For
instance, when a predator approaches, a vervet monkey may produce a sound alerting other
monkeys of the presence of a predator (Fichtel, 2020). However, by producing such sound,
the vervet monkey increases the chances of being personally attacked by the predator. Thus,
the action of the vervet monkey involves putting itself in harm’s way in order to save the
lives of fellow monkeys. Similar examples of self-sacrifice have also been recorded in other
animals. These examples, as well as the ones provided for human beings, show that altruistic
motive is not only natural to human beings and animals but also that it is frequently exercised
by them.

The concept of morality has also been used to dispute claims made by the theory of
psychological egoism that selfishness or self-interest motivates the actions of all human
beings. Morality relates to appropriateness or inappropriateness of given conduct or behavior.

5
The standards of conductor upon which a person’s actions can be judged to be moral or
immoral are often based on religion, culture, or a given philosophy. Thus, morality requires
acting or behaving in accordance with approved standards of a given culture or religion rather
than in accordance with one’s own personal self-interest or selfishness (Slote, 2020). In this
sense, it can be argued that it is impossible to be moral if one’s only motivation is self-
interest. In essence, living a moral life requires high levels of altruism. Therefore, the fact
that many people act morally on a daily basis invalidates the view that the motive of self-
interest drives all actions and behaviors of all human beings.

The paper has revealed significant weaknesses in the theory of psychological egoism.
Granted, selfishness is a strong motive that drives the actions and behaviors of all people.
However, it does not drive all human actions and behaviors. Altruism is also a major motive
for human actions and behaviors. There are many examples provided in the paper proving
that altruism is a motive behind many human actions and behaviors. Therefore, the claim of
psychological egoism that only self-interest drives human actions and behaviors is false.

6

References

Carlson, R. W., Adkins, C., Crockett, M. J., & Clark, M. S. (2020). Psychological selfishness.
Yale University

Colman, A., & Pulford, B. (2018). Altruism, collective rationality, and extreme self-sacrifice.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18001632

Fichtel, C. (2020). Monkey alarm calling: It ain’t all referential, or is it. Animal Behavior and
Cognition, 7(2), 101-107.

Slote, M. (2020). The Impossibility of Egoism. In Between Psychology and Philosophy (pp.
115-134). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.